Dismissed

Jaidev Singh v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC15 May 2017CW/5393/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ under Article 226 for issuance of an experience certificate and consideration for a government post. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that it suffered from inordinate delay and laches as it was filed four years after the deadline. Consequently, the application form was not to be accepted.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's application was rejected due to delay and laches; petition dismissed.

Jaidev Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5393 / 2017

¶3

Jaidev Singh S/o. Shri Fateh Singh, by Caste Jat (OBC),, Aged About 40 Years, Village Raisis, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur, Worked As Training Coordinator, Zila Parishad (Rural Development Cell) Bharatpur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan Through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan,, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

The Commissioner, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan,, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

Chief Executive Officer,, Zila Parishad, Bharatpur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal

¶11

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anurag Sharma, AAG

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Judgment

¶13

15/05/2017

¶14

Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the respondents be directed to issue valid experience certificate in favour of the petitioner for the post of Training Co-ordinator in Zila Parishad , Bharatpur and furthermore, respondents be directed to consider the petitioner for the post of Lower Division Clerk in pursuance of the advertisement (Annexure-4).

¶15

Admittedly, advertisement(Annexure-4) was issued in year 2013. Last date for submission of the application form was 22.03.2013, which was later extended to 18.04.2013.

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CW-5393/2017]

¶18

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since experience certificate was not issued by the respondents, therefore, application form of the petitioner in pursuance of the advertisement (Annexure-4) was not accepted by the respondents.

¶19

Petitioner when his application form was not accepted on or before 18.04.2013 ought to have approached this court. Petitioner after four years of the last date for submission of the application form has approached this court, with a prayer that respondents be directed to accept his application form offline.

¶20

The present writ petition suffers from delay and latches.

¶21

After four years of the last date for submission of the application form, application form cannot be accepted, hence, respondents have rightly not accepted the application form of the petitioner at a belated stage.

¶22

Hence, the present writ petition on the ground of delay and latches, is dismissed.

¶23

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIAJ.

¶24

Heena/63

Jaidev Singh v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaidev Singh v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaikam Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Rajendra Singh Vs the Union Bank of India and or

Kamal Rathore Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Harish Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Pyare Lal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Shobha Upadhyaya and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.